Agenda setting & framing

Agenda Setting and Framing

  1. First level: the media tells people what to think 

  • Giving more attention to certain issues 

  • Media Agenda: selects certain stories to cover more than others 

  • Public agenda: public starts perceiving these as more important 

  • Policy: when issues become prevalent in public agenda 

  1. Second Level (attribute agenda setting): how issues are portrayed 

  • Framing: the media’s choice in how to present an issue 

    • Selection and salience: which aspects are highlighted

    • Language and metaphors 

    • Focus and angle (ex. Economic vs. ethical implications) 

Ways to approach framing studies: 

  • Frame salience: which frames are featured more prominently 

  • Frame valence: tone of frames 

  • Frame interaction: how different frames compete/complement each other 

  • Frame amplification: how different channels amplify certain frames 

  1. Third Level (network): connections and relationships between different issues and attributes as portrayed by the media 

  • How different issues or attributes are connected/interrelated 

  • Co-occurrence of of issues and attributes within media content, analyzing how certain issues are consistently linked together, what patterns or networks emerge from media coverage 

Agenda building/cutting 

  1. Agenda Building: process of formation of the media and public agendas

  • Stakeholders like professionals, politicians, interest groups, public, who influence what is considered newsworthy 

  1. Agenda cutting: process of information removed/downplayed on the media/public agenda


Source Credibility Theory

SCT: perceived credibility of a source significantly influences the effectiveness of the message being delivered 

  1. Expertise: 

  • Credentials: educational background, professional qualifications, certifications of the source 

  • Experience 

  • publications/contributions to past research 

Role in media bias

  • Journalistic expertise: influenced by quality of analysis on issues, reputation, fact-checking, expertise in certain areas 

  1. Indicators of trustworthiness 

  • Reputation for honesty 

  • Consistency of message over time 

  • Intentions: whether the source appears to have the audience’s best interests at heart 

Role in Media Bias

  • Trustworthiness impacts perceptions of bias. 

  • A media outlet consistently favoring one party in their reporting may be perceived as biased by viewers from opposing political spectrums 

  • Influenced by: clear sourcing, reporting practices, consistency in reporting standards, historical reputation for honesty 

  1. Indicators of Attractiveness: 

  • Physical appearance 

  • Likability 

  • Charisma 

Role in perceived media bias: 

  • Attractiveness can influence how audiences perceive the bias of media sources. Media personalities who are attractive, charismatic, and relatable can engender trust, even when reporting is not always unbalanced 

  • Influenced by: professional presentation style, charisma, overall aesthetic appeal 


Dimensional Integrations

  1. Expertise and trustworthiness: both high expertise and high trustworthiness are less likely to be viewed as bias. 

  2. Trustworthiness and attractiveness: if audience perceives that attractiveness is used to manipulate or distract form biased reporting, it can backfire

  3. Expertise and attractiveness: creates strong perception of credibility. However, if attractiveness overshadows expertise, it leads to perceptions of bias